On Sep 9, 7:01 pm, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 16:57, pdpi wrote:
>
> > Raising this to 1 million, rather than 100, nodes in the window, the
> > timing difference between your version and NumPy's is tiny (but numpy
> > still edges you out, but just barely), but they trounce my naive
> > versi
On 9 Sep, 16:57, pdpi wrote:
> Raising this to 1 million, rather than 100, nodes in the window, the
> timing difference between your version and NumPy's is tiny (but numpy
> still edges you out, but just barely), but they trounce my naive
> version, being around 7 or 8 times faster the list compr
On Sep 9, 3:46 pm, pdpi wrote:
> On Sep 9, 3:27 am, sturlamolden wrote:
>
> > On 9 Sep, 00:24, Steven D'Aprano
>
> > wrote:
> > > A decent vendor-supplied implementation will include error checking that
> > > you otherwise would need to implement yourself, so yes.
>
> > Not for code like this:
>
On Sep 9, 3:27 am, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 00:24, Steven D'Aprano
>
> wrote:
> > A decent vendor-supplied implementation will include error checking that
> > you otherwise would need to implement yourself, so yes.
>
> Not for code like this:
>
>
>
> >>> import numpy as np
> >>> n = np.ara
On 9 Sep, 00:24, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> A decent vendor-supplied implementation will include error checking that
> you otherwise would need to implement yourself, so yes.
Not for code like this:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> n = np.arange(101)
>>> w = 0.5*(1.0-np.cos(2*np.pi*n/(100.)))
--
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:12:18 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 15:08, pdpi wrote:
>
>> Come, come. I think it's a good rule that, where available, a vendor-
>> supplied implementation is the preferable choice until proven
>> otherwise.
>
> Even for the simplest of equations?
A decent vend
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:12:18 -0700 (PDT) sturlamolden
wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 15:08, pdpi wrote:
>
> > Come, come. I think it's a good rule that, where available, a
> > vendor- supplied implementation is the preferable choice until
> > proven otherwise.
>
> Even for the simplest of equations?
>
Yes
On 8 Sep, 15:08, pdpi wrote:
> Come, come. I think it's a good rule that, where available, a vendor-
> supplied implementation is the preferable choice until proven
> otherwise.
Even for the simplest of equations?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sep 8, 1:55 pm, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 13:36, Pierre wrote:
>
> > anyone knows what is the python equivalent of the matlab's hanning
> > function.
>
> > Note that in matlab hann and hanning are different.
>
> If you don't know how to compute a von Hann window, you are not
> competent
On 8 Sep, 13:36, Pierre wrote:
> anyone knows what is the python equivalent of the matlab's hanning
> function.
>
> Note that in matlab hann and hanning are different.
If you don't know how to compute a von Hann window, you are not
competent to do any scientific programming. Seriously!
I assume
On Sep 8, 12:36 pm, Pierre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> anyone knows what is the python equivalent of the matlab's hanning
> function.
>
> Note that in matlab hann and hanning are different.
>
> Thanks !
I assume you mean the tapering function mentioned here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HanningFunction.h
Hello,
anyone knows what is the python equivalent of the matlab's hanning
function.
Note that in matlab hann and hanning are different.
Thanks !
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
12 matches
Mail list logo
